Retrospective analysis of coronary interventions in a single centre and comparison of specific differences between radial and femoral access.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyse the consequence of radial or femoral access during coronary interventions to radiation dose, fluorography time and a number of pseudoaneurysms following each type of intervention. Background: According to the results of many recent studies (RIVAL, RIFLE-STEACS, STEMI RADIAL), current guidelines favour radial over femoral access during coronary intervention for safety, especially in cases of acute coronary syndromes. However, several papers have referred to problems in the design of these studies and the management of antithrombotic therapy. The influence of access site on radiation dose and fluorography time is also still unclear. Methods: We retrospectively analysed 4522 patients who underwent coronary angiography in 2012 and 2016 in a single centre in the Czech Republic. We compared the access site with the average radiation dose and mean effective dose that each patient received in Gy/cm ² or mSv, respectively. We also compared average fluorography time in minutes and the incidence of pseudoaneurysms. Results: The radiation dose was a body mass index (BMI)-dependent parameter since each five points of body mass index increased radiation dose approximately by 23%. Use of femoral access resulted in lower fluorography time in all subgroups ( p < .001) and decreased radiation dose in patients with coronary artery bypass grafts (CABGs) by 26% ( p  = .044). On the other hand, there has been 16 times lower frequency ( p < .001) of post-catheterisation pseudoaneurysms after radial access than after femoral access. Conclusions: Both the radiation dose and fluorography time were lower after femoral access compared to radial access in patients with CABGs. On the other hand, radial access led to significantly fewer periprocedural pseudoaneurysms. Radial access therefore should be considered as the preferred access site during coronary intervention in patients with a high risk of pseudoaneurysm development, and femoral access should be considered for patients with a high risk of contrast-induced nephropathy.